tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433734171708230599.post3945634610415888552..comments2023-10-29T11:50:14.811-04:00Comments on Foundations of Economics: Voluntary Exchange Is Mutually Beneficial ReduxShawn Rhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02129241997834251648noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433734171708230599.post-31346840514077907342013-09-03T23:41:51.703-04:002013-09-03T23:41:51.703-04:00Ms. Pitt,
I would say that whether exchange is eq...Ms. Pitt,<br /><br />I would say that whether exchange is equitable and whether it is ethical are two different questions. Exchange is never equitable in the sense that both parties value the goods equally or that both parties trade from equal circumstances. If that is one's standard for exchange to be ethical and mutually beneficial, then it never is.<br /><br />Thankfully, exchange is mutually beneficial in the sense that, if both parties are freely engaging in exchange, they both receive something that they value more highly than what they give up. This does indeed happen all the time under capitalism. In fact serving others better than anyone else is the only way firms can reap a profit in a free society. It is hard to see how exchange is not mutually beneficial merely because people profit from it.<br /><br />Now it is important to know that when economists, Austrian or otherwise, state that exchange is mutually beneficial, they mean that only from the perspective of the participant's preferences at the time of action--not from any ethical standard or even from what one of the participant's preferences may happen to be immediately after the exchange. <br /><br />So I would not say that any voluntary exchange is "perfectly fine" in an ethical sense. There are a variety of voluntary exchanges people can make that I would not consider ethical. Prostitution would be one example. Another would be the example of slavery that you mention. Interestingly, Murray Rothbard, one of the greatest Austrian economists, has quite a bit to say about why slavery can never be part of the free society, and therefore never the result of voluntary exchange in his MAN, ECONOMY, AND STATE. In any event, you should know that I do take ethics into account when discussing exchange in my book FOUNDATIONS OF ECONOMICS.<br /><br />Best wishes.<br /><br />Shawn Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02129241997834251648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433734171708230599.post-18878003265602166072013-09-03T18:02:36.124-04:002013-09-03T18:02:36.124-04:00Mutualist anarchist here.
I'm not so much int...Mutualist anarchist here.<br /><br />I'm not so much interested in whether or not an exchange is "voluntary"; I'm interested in whether or not an exchange is equitable. Most of the exchange that happens under capitalism (where profit always turns into the bottom line) is not mutually beneficial in the least bit.<br /><br />Austrian economics tends to go on this warped line where exchange becomes ethical so long as the government doesn't get involved. They completely ignore factors like superstructure, culture/social norms, and so on. If I were starving, and someone offered me food in exchange for me becoming his temporary slave for 30 days, that would not be equitable by a mutualist's standards, yet it would be perfectly fine by the standards of most Austrian Schoolers. Take this into consideration.Julia Riber Pitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03006439247714055292noreply@blogger.com